Appeal 2006-2020
Application 10/267,152
rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.” DyStar
Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
ANALYSIS
Burris clearly recognizes that permitting the operator of a diagnostic
medical imaging ultrasound system to adjust the position and orientation of
the display device thereof relative to the cart is desirable ergonomically and
provides swiveling arms and a swiveling hinge to facilitate such adjustment
(Findings of Fact 2, 3). As evidenced by Rosen in particular, as well as
Crain and Yeh, providing handles on the housings of display monitors to
facilitate manipulation of the monitor to adjust its position or orientation for
optimal viewing was well known in the art at the time of Appellants’
invention. The benefit of providing a handle to facilitate grasping the
monitor for repositioning or reorientation is truly technology-independent
and would have been readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as
equally applicable to adjustably-mounted display devices of medical
diagnostic imaging ultrasound systems. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have immediately understood how to apply a handle, or a pair
of handles as taught by Rosen, to the display device of Burris to assist the
operator in grasping the display device for repositioning or reorientation.
Accordingly, we conclude that implicit motivation exists to combine the
applied references, Burris and Rosen in particular, by providing a pair of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013